advance materials for public workshops, round 2 …...2010/12/17 · south coast mpa monitoring...
TRANSCRIPT
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
i
Advance Materials for Public Workshops, Round 2
Draft South Coast MPA Monitoring Metrics Santa Barbara (November 8), Culver City (November 10), Carlsbad (November 15)
Introduction & Purpose of this Document
The MPA Monitoring Enterprise, in collaboration with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), is currently developing a
draft South Coast MPA Monitoring Plan. At a first round of monitoring planning public workshops held in the South Coast
region in July 2010, participants identified priorities for MPA monitoring, including ecological components of ocean
ecosystems, human activities, and MPA design and management questions. The input received during these workshops,
together with subsequent consultations with scientists and monitoring experts, has informed the development of initial
draft approaches and metrics for monitoring South Coast MPAs.
At a second round of public workshops, the Monitoring Enterprise will present these initial draft monitoring approaches
and metrics. Our objectives are to facilitate questions and discussion of the draft approaches and to seek written comments
on the draft metrics, at and/or following the workshops. The deadline for submission of written comments on the draft
metrics is November 27, 2010.
This document describes the draft South Coast monitoring metrics that will be the primary focus of discussion at the
workshops. It is hoped that workshop participants will review this document before the workshops, and refer to it during
the workshops and while preparing any written comments on the draft metrics.
Following these workshops, the MPA Monitoring Enterprise will use the input received to further refine the monitoring
metrics, which will be incorporated into a draft South Coast MPA Monitoring Plan. The draft plan will be subject to agency
review and released for public comment, likely in early 2011. The revised plan will then be submitted to the California Fish
& Game Commission for consideration, likely in Spring 2011.
About the draft South Coast MPA Monitoring Metrics
The Monitoring Enterprise has developed a framework for monitoring that will meet Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)
requirements. This framework adopts an ecosystem-based approach that encompasses habitats, marine life populations,
diversity and abundance, and human activities, including consumptive and non-consumptive uses of marine resources and
ecosystems. This will enable assessment of the performance of the South Coast regional MPA network against the full range
of MLPA goals.
Ten Ecosystem Features have been identified for the South Coast region that collectively represent and encompass South
Coast ecosystems, including humans, and provide the overarching structure for MPA monitoring. These are:
Consumptive Uses
Non-consumptive Uses
Kelp and Shallow (0 – 30m) Rock Ecosystems
Mid-depth (30 – 100m) Rock Ecosystems
Deep Ecosystems including Canyons (> 100m)
Rocky Intertidal Ecosystems
Soft-bottom Subtidal (0 – 100m) Ecosystems
Wetland and Estuarine Ecosystems
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
ii
Soft-bottom Intertidal Ecosystems, including Beaches
Nearshore Pelagic Ecosystems (in state waters > 30m)
The Ecosystem Features provide the top level of the monitoring framework, which will include two core monitoring
elements: 1) assessing ecosystem conditions and trends, and; 2) evaluating MPA design and management decisions (see
MPA monitoring framework diagram on page 1). Assessment of ecosystem condition and trends will be used to track the
state of marine ecosystems, including human activities, in the South Coast region, and how they change over time inside
and outside the MPAs. Evaluations of specific MPA design and management decisions, such as MPA size and spacing, will
examine the effects of these decisions on Ecosystem Features or Ecosystem Feature components. Collectively, the two core
monitoring elements will provide information to assess progress in achieving MLPA goals, and facilitate future adaptive
management decisions.
The remainder of this document provides a more detailed explanation of each of the two core monitoring elements and
presents draft monitoring metrics for each.
Table of Contents
A. MPA Monitoring Framework ................................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Assessing Ecosystem Condition & Trends ................................................................................................................................ 2
Kelp & Shallow (0-30m) Rock Ecosystems ............................................................................................................................... 3
Mid-depth (30-100m) Rock Ecosystems .................................................................................................................................. 7
Deep (>100m) Ecosystems, including canyons ...................................................................................................................... 10
Rocky intertidal Ecosystems .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Soft-bottom subtidal (0-100m) Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................... 15
Estuarine & Wetland Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Soft-Bottom intertidal & Beach Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................... 21
Nearshore pelagic ecosystems .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Consumptive uses .................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Non-consumptive Uses .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
C. Evaluating MPA Design & Management Decisions ................................................................................................................ 32
Short-term MPA Design & Management Evaluations ........................................................................................................... 32
Long-term MPA Design & Management Evaluations ............................................................................................................ 33
Size & Shape ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Spacing ............................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Habitat representation ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Placement & Siting ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Levels of protection ........................................................................................................................................................... 36
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
1
A. MPA MONITORING FRAMEWORK
Schematic diagram of the South Coast MPA Monitoring Framework showing the two principal monitoring elements: 1) assessing ecosystem condition and trends, and; 2) evaluating MPA design and management decisions. Ecosystem condition and trends may be monitored using Ecosystem Feature Checkups, which employ monitoring metrics called Vital Signs, or through Ecosystem Feature Assessments, which employ Key Attributes and Indicators or Focal Species as monitoring metrics. MPA design and management decisions are evaluated through answering targeted questions, including both short-term questions, expected to be answered within four years (one monitoring and reporting cycle), and long-term questions, expected to take longer than four years to answer. Monitoring is focused using ten Ecosystem Features, which collectively represent and encompass the South Coast ecosystems, including humans, and is designed to deliver useful results in advance of the five-year MPA reviews recommended by the MLPA Master Plan.
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
2
B. ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM CONDITION & TRENDS
The MPA monitoring framework includes two core elements: 1) assessing ecosystem condition and trends and; 2)
evaluating design and management decisions (see framework diagram, page 1). This section covers the first core element
(shown on the left-hand side of the framework diagram): Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Trends. These assessments
will be used to track the condition of marine ecosystems, including human activities, in the South Coast region – their status
and how they change over time, inside and outside the MPAs.
The framework for Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Trends is implemented by monitoring the South Coast Ecosystem
Features. It is important to note that this framework is not designed to measure everything that could possibly be
measured in each Ecosystem Feature; rather, its goal is to efficiently “take the pulse” of these systems.
There are two approaches or options for taking the pulse of Ecosystem Features: Ecosystem Feature Checkups and
Ecosystem Feature Assessments. Either or both of Ecosystem Feature Checkups and Ecosystem Feature Assessments can be
used to track the condition of Ecosystem Features, depending on available partners and other resources, and other
considerations.
Ecosystem Feature Checkups are designed to be carried out by community and citizen-scientist groups and thus use
simplified sampling protocols and methods. The metrics for Checkups are referred to as Vital Signs, and they collectively
provide a coarse-grained evaluation of Ecosystem Feature condition.
Ecosystem Feature Assessments are more detailed and technically demanding than Checkups and thus are likely to be
implemented by government agencies and research institutions. Metrics for Assessments are divided into two levels: Key
Attributes, which are important aspects of the structure or functioning of the Ecosystem Feature, and Indicators or Focal
Species that provide insight into the condition of each Key Attribute. The Indicators or Focal Species are used together to
assess the Key Attribute, and the Key Attributes are used together to assess the Ecosystem Feature.
The draft metrics (Vital Signs, and Key Attributes and Indicators or Focal Species) include species identified as priorities
during the first round of public workshops, those with important ecological roles, likely fast and slow MPA responders,
species with different life history characteristics, fished species which may be likely to show an MPA response, and unfished
species for comparison with fished species.
In addition to the draft metrics for monitoring via Checkups or Assessments, we also identify contextual information for
each Ecosystem Feature. This information will facilitate the interpretation of monitoring results and includes, for example,
information such as sea surface temperature, ocean currents and indicators of water quality.
The following tables present the Vital Signs, Key Attributes and Indicators/Focal Species, and contextual information for
each Ecosystem Feature. Rationales for the selection of Key Attributes and Indicators/Focal Species are provided. Because
Vital Signs are drawn from the list of Indicators, the rationales for Vital Signs can be found in the Attribute and Indicator
tables. The Monitoring Enterprise is inviting comments on these draft metrics.
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
3
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: KELP & SHALLOW (0-30M) ROCK ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Sheephead abundance & size frequency Red sea urchin abundance & size frequency Spiny lobster abundance & size frequency Kelp bass abundance & size frequency Rockfish abundance & size frequency Pink abalone abundance & size frequency Green abalone abundance & size frequency Red abalone abundance & size frequency
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal species Indicator description & rationale
Biogenic Habitat: Macroalgae
Canopy-forming kelp provides structure for numerous species and is a key foraging and nursery habitat for fish and invertebrates
Macroalgal abundance is an indicator of primary production
Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) areal extent of surface canopy
M. pyrifera is the dominant canopy-forming species
Areal extent is a measure of amount of habitat provided
Strong Ecological Interactors Includes species that have been demonstrated to play important roles in structuring this ecosystem
Changes in the density of these species is predicted to have significant impacts on system functioning
Includes harvested and unharvested species
Sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) density & size structure
Individuals change sex from female to male and large males are often fishery targets
Is an important predator of urchins and thus plays an important role in kelp forest dynamics
Important in commercial and recreational fishery
Red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) density & size structure
Key herbivore that has a strong effect on giant kelp abundance
Important commercial fishery
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
4
Spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) density & size structure
Has a broad diet and is an important predator of urchins
Important species in commercial and recreational fisheries
Initial results from the Channel Islands suggest that this species will respond to MPA designation
Sea stars (Pisaster spp., Pycnopodia helianthoides) density
These predators can exert strong top-down control on community structure
Diet is primarily mollusks and crustaceans
Sea otter (Enhydra lutris) abundance
Keystone predator that can have strong top-down impacts on kelp communities through predation on urchins and abalone
Historically found throughout the South Coast, currently only found at San Nicolas Island
Trophic structure: Predatory fishes
Presence of predatory fish indicates a functioning food web at multiple lower levels
Can play key ecological roles by moderating food web structure through top-down control
Response to protection may vary among species
Kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus) density & size structure
Feed primarily on small fishes and invertebrates
Larvae spend approximately 30 days in the plankton before settling
An important target of the recreational fishery in the South Coast
Olive rockfish(Sebastes serranoides) density & size structure
Live up to 25 years
Do not move long distances as adults
Were historically an important target of a recreational fishery, however populations have declined in the past few decades
Kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens) density & size structure
Strong association with giant kelp
Prey on crustaceans and small fishes
Targeted by the sport fishing and live-fish fisheries
Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) density & size structure
Feeds primarily on demersal fish, mollusks and crustaceans
Strongly site-attached as adults, potentially increasing the magnitude of an MPA response
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
5
Giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas)
Slow-growing and mature relatively late
Feed primarily on demersal fishes and crustaceans
Populations are currently well below historic levels
Trophic structure: Predatory invertebrates
Presence of predatory invertebrates indicates a functioning food web at multiple lower levels
Includes commercially and recreationally harvested species
Rock crabs (Cancer spp.) density & size structure
Important predators and scavengers in rocky habitats
Moderately mobile and so may respond to implementation of MPAs
An important commercial fishery
Kellet’s whelk(Kelletia kelletii) density & size structure
An important benthic predator on herbivorous snails
Subject of a growing fishery in the South Coast region
Trophic structure: Planktivorous fishes
These fishes indicate a functioning system in which nutrients are captured via an influx of plankton
Blacksmith (Chromis punctipinnis) density & size structure
Abundant planktivore in South Coast kelp forests
Not sought after in commercial or recreational fisheries
Senorita (Oxyjulis californica) density & size structure
Abundant planktivore in South Coast kelp forests
Greater abundances observed outside MPAs in the Channel Islands 5 years post-designation
Not sought after in commercial or recreational fisheries
Blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) density & size structure
Populations have declined in the South Coast in recent decades; fishing pressure and changing ocean conditions are thought to have contributed to this decline
May give birth twice in a breeding season potentially leading to rapid MPA responses
Trophic structure: Herbivorous invertebrates
Play important ecological roles as consumers of plants and algae (live and drift)
Pink abalone (Haliotis corrugata) density & size structure
Historically the target of heavy fishing pressure
Populations are currently depleted, such that there is low reproductive success
Green abalone (Haliotis fulgens) Historically the target of heavy fishing
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
6
density & size structure pressure
Populations are currently depleted, such that there is low reproductive success
Red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) density & size structure
Historically the target of heavy fishing pressure
Populations are currently depleted, such that there is low reproductive success
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS FOR ECOSYSTEM ASSESSEMENT
This set of information includes supplemental metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Biogenic habitat Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) stipe density
Sub-canopy & turf algae cover
Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) cover
Sessile invertebrate cover
Trophic structure: Herbivorous fishes
Density & size structure of focal species: Opaleye (Girella nigricans) Halfmoon (Medialuna californiensis)
Trophic structure: Unfished fishes
Painted greenling (Oxylebius pictus)
Species diversity Species richness (invertebrates & fish)
Species diversity (functional groups of fish & invertebrates
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results:
Sea surface temperature, depth of the thermocline, nutrients, turbidity, sedimentation, pH, salinity, chlorophyll, physical structure of the reef (e.g. rock type,
rugosity)
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
7
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: MID-DEPTH (30-100M) ROCK ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Rock crab abundance & size frequency Rockfish abundance & size frequency Lingcod abundance & size frequency Ocean whitefish abundance & size frequency White abalone abundance & size frequency
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Biogenic Habitat: Sessile invertebrates
Provides habitat for a diverse suite of species
Structure forming invertebrate cover and height
Provide structure and topographical relief
Many species are slow-growing, long-lived and fragile and may thus indicate an undisturbed environment
Trophic Structure: Predatory invertebrates
Predatory invertebrates indicate the presence of a functioning food web
Rock crab (Cancer spp.) density Benthic predators and scavengers
Important prey for fish and other invertebrates
Moderately mobile and so may respond to implementation of MPAs
Taken in a commercial fishery
Sheep (spider) crab (Loxorhynchus grandis) density
Largest California crab and a key benthic predator and scavenger
Trophic Structure: Predatory fishes
Play important roles at multiple trophic levels
Indicator of the presence of a functioning food web
Indicators are likely to exhibit varying responses to protection
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) density & size structure
Prey upon fishes, including young rockfish
Long-lived (up to 50 yrs) and relatively fast-growing
Currently designated as “over-fished” and thus may respond positively to implementation of MPAs
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
8
Vermilion rockfish (Sebastes miniatus) density & size structure
Primarily piscivorous
Long-lived (up to 60 years) and slow-growing
Relatively sedentary as adults, potentially increasing responsiveness to MPA designation
Greater abundance observed inside MPAs in the Channel Islands 5 years post-designation
Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) density & size structure
Feed primarily on demersal fishes and invertebrates
Relatively sedentary, potentially increasing responsiveness to MPA designation
Taken in both commercial and recreational fisheries
Greater abundance observed inside MPAs in the Channel Islands 5 years post-designation
Ocean whitefish (Caulolatilus princeps) density & size structure
Feed primarily on small crustaceans, squid and fish
Taken primarily in the recreational fishery; commercial fishery is small
Greater abundance observed inside MPAs in the Channel Islands 5 years post-designation
Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) size structure
Numerically dominant fish in this ecosystem
Taken in both commercial and recreational fisheries
Larger individuals may have disproportionally higher reproductive output
Trophic Structure: Detritivores
Indicate the capture of nutrients and productivity from sources internal and external to the system
Urchin (Echinidae, multiple species) density & size structure
Mobile grazers that feed on live and drift algae
White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) density & size structure
Mobile grazers that primarily feed on drift algae
Listed as critically endangered
Populations are not expected to recover quickly due to chronic reproductive failure as a result of low adult density (i.e. Allee effect)
Community Structure: Dwarf rockfish
Dwarf rockfish populations were historically constrained by
Total dwarf rockfish abundance (multiple species)
Trends in abundance may indicate shifts in community structure
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
9
predation by large adult rockfish and by competition with juveniles of larger species
Fishing has disproportionately affected larger, slow-growing species resulting in increases of dwarf rockfish populations
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This set of information includes supplemental metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Biogenic Habitat Cover of focal species: Purple hydrocoral (Stylaster californicus) Elk kelp (Pelagophycus porra)
Species diversity Species richness (invertebrates & fish)
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results:
Substrate relief, rock type, proximity to shallow reef, oxygen, currents, depth of thermocline, internal wave energy
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
10
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: DEEP (>100M) ECOSYSTEMS, INCLUDING CANYONS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) abundance & size frequency Flatfish abundance & size frequency Sea urchin (multiple species) abundance Spot prawn abundance and size frequency
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Biogenic Habitat: Sessile invertebrates
Provide habitat for a diverse suite of species
Structure-forming invertebrate cover and height
Provide structure and topographical relief
Many species are slow-growing, long-lived and fragile and may thus indicate an undisturbed environment
Trophic Structure: Predatory fishes
Indicates the presence of a functioning food web
Indicator species are likely to vary in response to local protection
Cowcod (Sebastes levis) density & size structure
Diet is primarily fishes, octopus and squid
Currently designated as “overfished”
Long-lived and late maturing, so MPA response may be slow
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) density & size structure
Prey upon other fishes, including young rockfish
Long-lived, and relatively fast growing
Currently designated as “overfished” and thus may respond positively to implementation of MPAs
Bank rockfish (Sebastes rufus) density & size structure
Long-lived and slow-growing
Populations have declined since the 1990s
May respond positively to implementation of MPAs, but response is likely to be slow
Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) density & size structure
Diet includes crustaceans and small fishes
Long-lived, fast growing and highly mobile
Targeted primarily by commercial fisheries
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
11
Trophic Structure: Detrivores
Indicate the capture of nutrients and productivity from sources internal and external to the system
Sea urchin (Echinoidea, multiple species) abundance
Feed on drift algae and other detrius
Provide structural relief in soft-sediment areas that can be used as prey refuges for small invertebrates and fish
Hagfish (Eptatretus stoudii) abundance
Important detritivores in deep ecosystems, feeding primarily on dead fish and mammals
Target of a growing fishery
Spot prawns (Pandalus platyceros) abundance & size structure, sex ratio
Feed on other crustaceans and mollusks as well as fish carcasses
Change sex as grow, shifts in sex/size structure may indicate response to MPAs
Target of commercial fishery
Community Structure: Dwarf rockfish
Dwarf rockfish populations were historically constrained by predation by large adult rockfish and by competition with juveniles. Fishing has disproportionately affected larger species resulting in increases in dwarf rockfish populations
Total dwarf rockfish abundance (multiple species)
Trends in abundance may indicate shifts in community structure
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This set of information includes additional metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Species diversity Species richness (fish & invertebrates)
Species diversity (functional groups of fish & invertebrates
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results: Rugosity, cold-water seeps, O2 minimum zone, currents, trawling history
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
12
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: ROCKY INTERTIDAL ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Mussel bed area Rockweed cover Ochre sea star abundance & size frequency Black oystercatcher abundance Black abalone abundance & size frequency Green abalone abundance & size frequency Purple sea urchin abundance & size frequency Owl limpet abundance & size frequency Pinniped abundance (harbor seal, California sea lion, northern elephant seal)
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Biogenic Habitat Provides refuge from predators and exposure to desiccating conditions
Plants and algal species are indicators of primary production in the system
Species may be sensitive to human disturbance, such as trampling
Mussel (Mytilus spp.) percent cover
Mussel beds provide habitat for many invertebrate species
Preyed on by sea stars, whelks and birds
Cover and density may be reduced by trampling
Feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii) percent cover
Provides shelter for other algal and invertebrate species
Preferred food of some invertebrate grazers
Rockweed (Silvetia compressa) percent cover
Canopy provides habitat and shelter for mobile invertebrates
Cover and density may be reduced by trampling
Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) percent cover
Provides shelter and nursery habitat for fishes and invertebrates
Important primary producer
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
13
Impacted by trampling, sewage and oil
Trophic Structure: Predators Presence indicates a functioning multi-level food web
May regulate community structure through top-down control
Sea star (Pisaster ochraceus) density & size
Keystone species that strongly influences community structure by preferentially feeding on mussels
Black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) abundance
A characteristic predatory bird species on rocky shores
Presence is linked to availability of prey (primarily mussels and limpets)
Breed on undisturbed, rocky open ocean shores
Trophic Structure: Herbivorous invertebrates
Play key roles in structuring intertidal communities by maintaining bare rock that can facilitate settlement of sessile organisms
An important link in intertidal food webs
Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) density & size structure
Feed primarily on drift algae
Populations are currently depressed due to overharvesting and disease
Recently listed as endangered by the federal government
Green abalone (Haliotis fulgens) density & size structure
Found in warmer waters in Southern California
Occur from the low intertidal to shallow subtidal
Feed on drift algae, preferring fleshy reds
Purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) density & size structure
Important grazer that feeds on drift algae and kelp
Play a role as a bioeroder by boring holes in rocks
Owl limpet (Lottia gigantea) density & size structure
Maintain territories on rocks by grazing or bulldozing other competitors
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This set of information includes supplemental metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Biogenic habitat Cover of focal groups Turf algae Foliose red algae
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
14
Fucoid algae
Trophic structure: Predators Piscivorous bird richness and abundance
Shorebird richness and abundance
Species diversity Species richness (algae & invertebrates)
Species diversity (functional groups of fish & invertebrates
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results:
Wave exposure, natural disturbance, climate, geology, human disturbance
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
15
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: SOFT-BOTTOM SUBTIDAL (0-100M) ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Eelgrass areal extent Yellow rock crab abundance & size frequency California halibut abundance & size frequency Surfperch (multiple species) abundance & size frequency Flatfish abundance & size frequency
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attributes Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Biogenic Habitat Plays an important role by providing structure and habitat
Eelgrass (Zostera spp.) areal extent
Provides important foraging and nursery areas
Physical disturbance can lead to declines in abundance
Sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) bed extent
Stabilizes the substrate and provide structure for a diverse community of organisms
Trophic Structure: Benthic infauna
Provide important linkages in subtidal food webs
Functional diversity of benthic infauna (feeding guilds)
Changes in functional diversity occur in response to decreased disturbance or changes in sediment quality
Trophic Structure: Mobile invertebrates
Play a variety of roles in the ecosystem including as predators, scavengers and bioturbators
Yellow rock crab (Cancer anthonyi) density & size structure
Function both as predators and scavengers, eating a wide variety of invertebrates
Preyed on by fishes, including rockfishes, as well as by octopus and sea stars
Targeted both recreationally and commercially
Sea star (Astropecten spp.) density & size structure
Feed primarily on gastropods and sea pansies
Ridgeback prawn (Sicyonia ingentis) density & size structure
Abundant detritivore
Population size appears to be positively correlated with warm-water events, as seen
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
16
during El Niños
Targeted by a commercial fishery
Sea cucumber (Parastichopus spp.) density & size structure
Feed on detritus and small organisms in sand and mud
Important bioturbators, altering the structure of the top layer of sediment
Harvested commercially
Trophic Structure: Predatory fish
Play important roles in structuring
the community
Indicate the presence of multiple, functioning trophic levels
California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) density & size structure
Adults are piscivorous
Use shallow waters of the open coast as nursery grounds
Taken by both recreational and commercial fisheries
Sanddab (Citharichthys spp.) density & size structure
Feed near or on the bottom on a variety of prey; adults feed primarily on euphausiids and squid
Preyed upon by larger fishes, diving birds and marine mammals
Taken by both recreational and commercial fisheries
Barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) density & size structure
Prey includes crabs, octopus, squid and small fishes
Juveniles are often associated with eelgrass beds
Taken exclusively by recreational fishery
Surfperch abundance (Embiotocidae, multiple species) density & size structure
Diets consist of crustaceans, molluscs and
polychaete worms
Important prey for fish and birds
Live-bearers that lack a pelagic larval stage
Taken in the recreational fishery
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
17
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This set of information includes supplemental metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Biogenic Habitat Elk kelp (Pelagophycus porra) cover
Productivity: Subsidies Squid egg (Loligo opalescens) cover
Trophic Structure: Predatory fish Density & size structure of focal species: Bat ray (Myliobatis californica) Leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) Angel shark (Squatina californica)
Species Diversity Species richness (invertebrates & fishes)
Species diversity (functional groups of fish & invertebrates
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate the interpretation of monitoring results:
Levels of disturbance, wave regime, grain size, location of adjoining habitats, shell mounds, depth of photic zone, current velocity, water quality
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
18
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: ESTUARINE & WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Eelgrass areal extent Ghost and mud shrimp abundance Pacific gaper and chione clam abundance & size frequency Marine bird diversity & abundance Halibut abundance & size frequency Arthropod biomass Harbor seal abundance (colony size)
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Biogenic Habitat Plays critical ecological role as nursery habitat
Important habitat for foraging
Areal extent of eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Abundance has been shown to influence fish assemblages
Poor water quality, high turbidity, and physical disturbance lead to declines
Trophic Structure: Benthic infauna
Includes bioturbators, filter-feeders and tube-builders
Key component of estuarine food web
Provide important habitat modification effects
Mud shrimp (Upogebia spp.) abundance
Important bioturbators, creating branched burrows that create habitat for other species
Important prey for some fishes and birds
Abundance is negatively affected by trampling associated with hand harvest, thus is likely to benefit from establishment of MPAs
Ghost shrimp (Callianassa spp.) abundance
Important bioturbators, creating branched burrows that create habitat for other species
Important prey for some fishes and birds
Abundance is negatively affected by trampling associated with hand harvest, thus is likely to benefit from establishment of MPAs
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
19
Pacific gaper clam (Tresus nuttalli) density & size structure
Popular recreationally targeted species throughout California
Lives in burrows up to 1m deep
Collected for food and as bait
Chione clam (Chiones spp.) density & size structure
Preyed on by bat rays, crabs and whelks
Primarily a recreationally targeted species
Trophic Structure: Predatory birds
Responsive to changing prey abundance
Sensitive to habitat modification (e.g. loss of foraging habitat or decreased water quality)
Total abundance & diversity of piscivorous birds & shorebirds
Spend significant time foraging in estuarine habitats
Populations may increase in areas with reduced disturbance
Increases in abundance may results from increased fish populations
Trophic Structure: Predatory fishes
Indicate the presence and functioning of multiple lower trophic levels
Abundances may increase in areas under MPA designation with decreased disturbance and take, and increased prey populations
Leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) density and size structure
Opportunistic feeder on crustaceans, mollusks, and some species of fish
Abundance in estuaries can vary seasonally
Taken recreationally, and to a lesser extent, commercially
Bat ray (Myliobatis californica) density and size structure
Feed primarily on mollusks and crustaceans
Known to return to the same bays and sloughs to give birth and mate
Taken recreationally, and to a lesser extent, commercially
California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) density and size structure
Estuaries provide important nursery habitat for juvenile halibut
Trophic Structure: Resident fishes
Serve as important energy linkages in food web
Increases may be expected in direct response to reduced fishing and indirect responses to increased prey availability and reduced habitat disturbance
Shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) density and size structure
Diet consists of small crustaceans and other invertebrates
Prey for larger fish as well as harbor seals and birds
Harvested recreationally
Spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus) density and size structure
Feed primarily on crustaceans and small fishes
Range is restricted to shallow bays and estuaries in Southern California
Recreationally targeted species, with pressure increasing in recent years
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
20
Productivity Arthropods are an important source of food in this ecosystem and provide an important link between terrestrial and marine ecosystems
Arthropod biomass Measures of arthropod biomass can indicate food availability for birds and other organisms that forage in estuaries and wetlands
Increases in arthropod biomass are related to system productivity
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This set of information includes additional metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Biogenic Habitat Areal extent of common pickleweed (Salicornia virginica)
Habitat diversity
Trophic structure: Benthic infauna
Abundance & foraging rates of shorebirds
Trophic structure Parasite diversity
Species diversity Species richness (invertebrates & fish)
Species diversity (functional groups of fish & invertebrates
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results:
Tidal regime, estuary or wetland size and morphology, freshwater inputs, water temperature, human activities (e.g., breaching, flood and mosquito control),
water quality (e.g., dissolved O2, salinity, chlorophyll, turbidity, sediment load, contaminants)
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
21
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: SOFT-BOTTOM INTERTIDAL & BEACH ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Sand crab abundance Pismo clam abundance & size frequency Beach wrack composition and abundance Surfperch abundance (multiple species) Grunion nest density and number of runs Shore bird richness & abundance Pinniped abundance (harbor seal, California sea lion, northern elephant seal)
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Trophic Structure: Suspension feeders
Convert phytoplankton to biomass and thus make energy available to higher trophic levels
Sand crab (Emerita analoga) density & size structure
Population sizes are closely related to the productivity of inshore waters
Prey for many fishes and birds
Collected for use as bait by fishermen
Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) density & size structure
Found in the intertidal zone on flat beaches but can also be found in the shallow subtidal
Predators include sharks, bat rays, sea otters and moon snails
Larvae are thought to be benthic associated, suggesting local recruitment
Taken in the recreational fishery
Bean clams (Donax gouldii) density & size structure
Common bivalve on sandy beaches
Can form dense aggregations
Abundance can vary widely from year to year
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
22
Productivity: Beach wrack Macroalgal wrack is an important source of nutrients to beach ecosystems
The presence of wrack is indicative of linkages between nearshore and intertidal ecosystems
Wrack composition (e.g. kelps, foliose reds) and abundance
Wrack is an essential food source for amphipods and isopods, which themselves are an important food source for fishes and birds
Productivity: Surf zone fish assemblage
Exhibit a range of life history characteristics
Subject to different levels of recreational and commercial fishing
Surfperch abundance and size structure(Embiotocidae, multiple species)
Diets consist of crustaceans, molluscs and polychaete worms
Are important prey for fish and birds
Bear live young and lack a pelagic larval stage
Targeted by recreational fishery
Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) nest density, number of runs
Endemic to California
Spawning occurs on beaches
Nests are negatively impacted by activities such as beach grooming and nourishment
Trophic Structure: Predatory birds
Soft-bottom intertidal environments are important foraging habitat for migratory and resident bird species
Total abundance of shorebirds
Shorebird abundance indicates the availability of prey
Abundance may increase in with decreased disturbance
Shorebird species richness Increased richness of shorebirds is predicted to occur in response to increased abundance and diversity of prey species
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This set of information includes additional metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Productivity Wrack invertebrate diversity and biomass
Predators: Shorebirds Shorebird feeding (capture) rate
Species diversity Species richness (invertebrates & fish)
Species diversity (functional groups of fish & invertebrates
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
23
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate the interpretation of monitoring results: Wave regime, slope, grain size and sorting, width of sandy area, erosion/deposition
cycles, nourishment, grooming, coastal development, other human activities, contaminants
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
24
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: NEARSHORE PELAGIC ECOSYSTEMS
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Semi-pelagic/pelagic rockfish average & maximum size Brandt’s cormorant abundance Pelagic cormorant abundance Sooty shearwater abundance Cassin’s auklet breeding success
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
Draft Key Attribute Key Attribute rationale Draft Indicators/Focal Species Indicator description & rationale
Trophic Structure: Predatory fishes
Increased abundance of these higher level predators indicates the presence and functioning of multiple lower trophic levels
Widow rockfish (Sebastes entomelas) density & size structure
Feed on small fishes, crustaceans and gelatinous zooplankton
Semi-pelagic/pelagic fish often found in schools in midwater
Federally designated as overfished
Shortbelly rockfish (Sebastes jordani) density & size structure
Semi-pelagic/pelagic fish often found in dense aggregations in midwater
Planktivorous, primarily on euphausiids
Young-of-the-year are prey for birds, piscivorous fish and marine mammals
Currently not commercially targeted
Yellowtail (Seriola lalandi) density & size structure
Opportunistic foragers, feeding on fish, squid and crustaceans
Population size may vary in response to oceanographic conditions, increasing when warmer water is present
Taken in commercial and recreational fisheries
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
25
Pacific barracuda (Sphyraena argentea) density & size structure
Found schooling in the nearshore epipelagic
Feed on fishes such as anchovy, sardine and Pacific mackerel
Taken primarily in the recreational fishery
Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicas) density & size structure
Exhibit seasonal migration with increased numbers inshore from July to November
Feed on small fishes, euphausiids and squid
Important commercial and recreational species
Trophic Structure: Predatory birds
Important predators in pelagic ecosystems
Forage in areas ranging from shallow estuarine and nearshore waters to deeper pelagic habitats
Populations fluctuate with oceanographic and climatic changes
May benefit from reduced disturbance of nesting sites
Brandt’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) abundance (colony size) and fledgling rate
Feed primarily on small fishes
Typically nest on broad cliff ledges or the tops of headlands
Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) abundance (colony size) and fledgling rate
Forage in bays, estuaries and close to shore along the coast
Feed primarily on small fishes and crustaceans
Breed on small, offshore islands and rocky cliffs with deep water at the base
Sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) abundance (colony size) and fledgling rate
Migratory species for which California is an important foraging area
Feed on fishes, squid and euphausiids
Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) abundance (colony size) and fledgling rate
Nest in small burrows on islands
Feed primarily on euphausiids and small fishes
Often forage at oceanographic fronts where prey are concentrated
Trophic Structure: Forage base
Species provide food and nutrients to higher trophic levels
Forage fish biomass (sardines, anchovies, other schooling bait fish)
Important prey for fishes, mammals and birds
Population sizes may fluctuate with oceanic conditions
Market squid (Loligo opalescens) biomass
Important prey for fishes, mammals and birds
Important commercial fishery
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
26
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS TO ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
This information includes supplemental metrics, some or all of which can be added as methods & resources permit.
Draft Key Attribute Draft Indicators/Focal Species
Productivity: Ichthyoplankton Total ichthyoplankton abundance
Total abundance of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) larvae
Ratio of fished species to unfished species
Trophic structure Total jellyfish abundance
Trophic structure: predators Size and persistence of bird feeding aggregations
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will be used to facilitate interpretation of monitoring results:
Sea surface temperature, fronts, upwelling, salinity, currents
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
27
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: CONSUMPTIVE USES
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Landings (weight & value) of key species (nearshore finfish, spiny lobster, red urchin & market squid) per fishing block & port for the commercial fishery
Landings (number & length frequency) of key species (rockfish, kelp bass, barred sand bass, white seabass & Pacific barracuda) per fishing block & port by CPFVs
Catch per unit effort (CPUE) of key species (as above) per fishing block & port by CPFVs Number of lobster captured per fishing trip and location by recreational fishers
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
DRAFT CONSUMPTIVE USES TO BE MONITORED
For each consumptive use or activity, key fishery species for monitoring include economically and ecologically important species.
Draft Consumptive Uses to be Monitored Uses to be Monitored rationale
Commercial Fishing: Nearshore rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) Red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) Market squid (Loligo opalescens) Crab (Cancer spp., Loxorhynchus grandis)
Commercial fishing generates significant direct and indirect revenue from secondary services and facilities – playing an important role in coastal communities
Selected species are important components of commercial fisheries in the South Coast and play important ecological roles
Trends in commercial fishing in response to MPA designation will be closely linked to broader economic, regulatory and ecological changes in the region
Recreational Fishing – Commercial passenger fishing vessels (CPFVs) including dive charters:
Nearshore rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus) Barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) Spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) California scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata)
CPFVs – also called party boats – are popular within the region
Fishing is primarily conducted using hook-and-line gear
Selected species are commonly taken by CPFVs
Recreational Fishing - Private Vessels (including kayak angling) Fishing from private vessels, including kayaks, is a popular recreational activity
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
28
Nearshore rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus) Barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) Spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) California halibut (Paralichthys californicus)
in the South Coast region
Selected species are those that are commonly taken and may play important ecological roles in the system.
Recreational Fishing – Shore-based Surfperches (Embiotocidae, multiple species) Croakers (Scianidae, multiple species) Silversides (Antherinopsidae, multiple species)
Shore-based fishing is a popular form of recreational fishing in the South Coast region
Includes all land-based fishing access including beaches, rocky shores and man-made structures
DRAFT INDICATORS
Each consumptive use is monitored using the same indicators. Note, however, that not all indicators need to be implemented at the same time, or at the same
frequency. For example, Knowledge, Attitudes and Perception (KAP) surveys may be most usefully conducted once every five or more years. Indicators for each
consumptive use are:
Draft Indicators Indicator rationale
1. Number of people or vessels engaged in the activity Data is cost efficient to obtain although it is likely to be more informative over longer time scales
Highly dependent on other factors: e.g. market forces, additional fisheries regulations, permit restrictions, etc.
2. Level of activity a. Number of fishing trips per fishing location, vessel,
port & region b. Landings of key species per trip, fishing location,
vessel, port & region c. CPUE (catch per unit effort) of key species per trip,
fishing location, vessel, port & region
Tracking the number of fishing trips at a variety of spatial scales provides spatially explicit data that can be used to document shifts in fishing activity
Landings of key species include weight of landings per trip and vessel, and fish size; information that can provide informative links to ecological changes in fish stocks
CPUE is an integrative measure of level and quality of activity that can be linked to ecological changes
3. Economic value or quality of activity a. Landings value of key species per trip, fishing location,
vessel, port & region b. Ex-vessel value of key species (commercial fisheries) c. Net revenue (commercial fisheries) or expenditure
(recreational fisheries)
Economic or quality values can be used to assess relative costs and benefits of MPA implementation to the consumptive use participants.
These values are used in analyses that can estimate the effects of the MPAs versus other environmental changes occurring at the same time, such as changes in market demand or fuel costs.
4. Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions (KAP) of participants a. Motivation b. Satisfaction
Surveys contribute additional information to explain patterns in activity level and increase our understanding of the role of the MPAs in observed changes.
KAP surveys can include a broader sector of the public, e.g. those living inland
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
29
DRAFT OPTIONAL CONSUMPTIVE USES TO BE MONITORED
This information includes supplemental consumptive use metrics, some of all of which can be monitored using the same indicators above, as methods & resources permit.
Draft Consumptive Uses to be Monitored
Recreational Fishing - spearfishing White seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) Yellowtail (Seriola lalandi) Sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) Kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus)
Recreational Fishing – Clamming Pacific gaper clam (Tresus nuttalli) Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum ) Chione clam (Chiones spp.)
Scientific collecting (indicators to be developed)
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results:
Economic metrics (e.g. fuel prices, market demand, market prices, regional economic indicators), environmental condition metrics (e.g. weather conditions
measured via the number of available fishing days), regulatory changes (e.g. changes in fishing season length)
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
30
ECOSYSTEM FEATURE: NON-CONSUMPTIVE USES
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE CHECKUP
Draft Vital Signs
Number of diving trips & divers per access point & dive site Number of visitors engaging in recreational beach use Number of visitors to rocky intertidal ecosystems for tidepooling Number of boat-based wildlife viewing trips & visitors per port & viewing location Number of shoreline wildlife viewers to estuarine, wetland & beach ecosystems
DRAFT METRICS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
DRAFT NON-CONSUMPTIVE USES TO BE MONITORED
The indicator framework below can be applied to each non-consumptive use or activity.
Draft Non-consumptive Uses to be Monitored Rationales
Scuba diving Recreational non-consumptive diving is popular in the region
Increased quality of recreational diving opportunities may be linked to ecological changes in response to MPA designation
Diving produces direct and indirect revenue from businesses, services and facilities in the region
Recreational beach use Beaches in the South Coast region are heavily used for a variety of recreational activities
These activities provide opportunity to explore relationships between human visitation and ecological impacts, such as habitat modification
Tidepooling Tidepool visitation appeals to a broad demographic
This activity provides opportunity to explore relationships between human visitation and ecological impacts, such as trampling
Wildlife viewing - kayaking The region contains many popular kayaking locations in the nearshore environment
This activity provides opportunity to explore relationships between human visitation and ecological impacts, such as potential wildlife disturbance
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
31
DRAFT INDICATORS
Each non-consumptive use is monitored by applying the same indicators listed below. Note, however, that not all indicators need to be implemented at the
same time or with the same frequency. For example, Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions (KAP) surveys are typically conducted once every five or more
years. Indicators for Non-consumptive Uses are:
Draft Indicators Indicator rationale
1. Level of activity – number & location of trips (spatial use & intensity)
Includes number of trips per individual and total number of individuals
Geographic comparisons of trips to MPA and non-MPA locations must also take into account other factors e.g. areas historically popular for recreational activities, ease of access, and seasonality effects
2. Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions (KAP) of participants a. Motivation – including MPAs b. Satisfaction – e.g., travel distance, travel & activity
costs, likelihood of return
Surveys contribute additional information to explain patterns in activity level and increase our understanding of the role of the MPAs in observed changes.
Full KAP surveys can include a broader sector of the public including those living inland
DRAFT OPTIONAL ADD-ONS FOR ECOSYSTEM FEATURE ASSESSMENT
This information includes supplemental non-consumptive uses, some or all of which can be monitored using the same indicators above, as methods & resources permit.
Draft Non-consumptive Uses to be Monitored
Wildlife viewing – boating Wildlife viewing – shore-based Educational use
DRAFT CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
This information will facilitate interpretation of MPA monitoring results:
Economic metrics (e.g. fuel prices, trip costs(such as the price of wildlife viewing boat trips), regional economic indicators), environmental condition metrics
(e.g. weather condition measured as the number of dry days or amount of rainfall)
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
32
C. EVALUATING MPA DESIGN & MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
As noted above, the MPA monitoring framework includes two core monitoring elements: 1) assessing ecosystem condition
and trends; and 2) evaluating design and management decisions (see framework diagram, page 1). This section covers the
second core monitoring element (seen on the right-hand side of the framework diagram): Evaluating MPA Design &
Management Decisions.
The establishment and on-going management of MPAs involve a number of decisions, ranging from fundamental design
decisions made during the MPA planning process, such as MPA size and spacing, to day-to-day management decisions
made to address ongoing and emerging issues, such as those related to managing visitors to MPAs. Monitoring to meet
MLPA requirements includes evaluation of select MPA design and management decisions to inform future management
decisions and thereby facilitate adaptive management.
To guide the implementation of this monitoring element, evaluations of MPA design and management decisions are
categorized into two groups: short-term evaluations, which are expected to generate conclusive information in four years
or less (i.e., within one of the five-year MPA review periods recommended in the MLPA Master Plan); and long-term
evaluations, which are expected to take more than four years to answer.
The draft evaluation questions in this document have arisen both through the South Coast MPA planning process (as
reported in various MLPA Initiative documents) and through the South Coast monitoring planning process to date. During
the MPA planning process for the South Coast, stakeholders developed MPA network proposals, implementing guidelines
relating to the siting, size, and boundary placement of proposed MPAs, as well as the human activities allowed in each
MPA. As recorded in MLPA Initiative documents, many potential evaluation questions arose through this process.
The following pages present an initial list of draft evaluation questions that may be included in the draft South Coast MPA
Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring Enterprise is inviting comment on these evaluation questions.
DRAFT SHORT-TERM MPA DESIGN & MANAGEMENT EVALUATIONS
Short-term evaluations are those expected to generate conclusive information in four years or less, and are thus
answerable within one of the five-year MPA review cycles. Five-year reviews of MPAs are recommended by the MLPA
Master Plan to fulfill the MLPA requirement for adaptive MPA management. These questions tend to focus on specific
design or management decisions, and the responses of select ecological or socioeconomic components of Ecosystem
Features to those decisions.
Following is a draft list of short-term evaluation questions. These are being proposed for inclusion in the South Coast MPA
Monitoring Plan as an initial inventory of questions from which specific questions to be addressed may be selected at the
time of monitoring implementation. Note: these are not listed in order of priority.
1. Are there impacts (e.g., increased disturbance) of visitation on marine mammal haul-outs, and nesting seabirds and shorebirds in estuaries and on beaches in MPAs and special closures?
2. Are there impacts (e.g., trampling, displacement of flora and fauna) of visitation on rocky intertidal ecosystems in MPAs?
3. What are the economic effects (e.g., fuel costs, time spent at sea) of MPA placement, specifically distance from ports and location relative to fishing grounds, and what are the implications for siting MPAs to minimize adverse economic impacts and to prevent serial depletion?
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
33
4. How frequent are MPA boundary-crossings by targeted species and does the frequency of boundary crossings differ between MPAs that encompass a reef and those that split a reef? What changes have occurred in the fisheries (e.g., fishing effort, catch) conducted on the portions of reefs left open to fishing?
5. Does locating an MPA close to a boat ramp or other access point affect the level of enforcement and/or compliance with MPA regulations?
6. How do allowed uses of SMCAs influence the distribution and intensity of fishing effort? Do SMCAs that allow take of multiple species or use of multiple gear types have disproportionately high fishing intensity?
7. What impact does anchoring have on purple corals and other biogenic habitats?
8. During the MPA planning process, the South Coast Science Advisory Team (SCSAT) recommended that MPAs proposed to protect communities associated with giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) be located in areas of persistent kelp. However, a stretch of the mainland coast, between Palos Verdes and San Elijo, does not contain persistent kelp beds. In this area, the SCSAT recommended that MPAs be designed to encompass potential kelp habitat as represented by the maximum kelp measure, and made recommendations about the amount of this habitat that needs to be included in proposed MPAs designed to protect kelp forest habitat.
1 Are the kelp forest communities
contained within 2.04 linear miles of maximum kelp equivalent, in terms of assemblage composition, to those found within 1.14 linear miles of persistent kelp?
9. During the MPA design process, the SCSAT developed science guidelines for individual and MPA network design, including recommending that all key habitats be included in replicate MPAs.
2 Are the identified key habitats
represented and replicated in the implemented array of MPAs? Is kelp habitat accurately represented by the “maximum kelp” designation?
10. During the MPA planning process, there was discussion about experimentally removing urchins from some rocky reefs. Does urchin removal impact the amount of kelp (e.g., aerial extent, stipe density)?
11. Do sediment plumes from beach nourishment or dredging activities negatively impact the growth of seagrasses and/or kelp in nearby MPAs?
12. What are the impacts (e.g., reduced foraging rates, increased disturbance, improved nesting habitat) of beach grooming on shorebirds in MPAs?
13. Are there differences in the number of shorebirds nesting and foraging on beaches in MPAs that are nourished and those that are not?
DRAFT LONG-TERM MPA DESIGN & MANAGEMENT EVALUATIONS
Long-term evaluations are those expected to take more than four years to answer, and thus will span one or more of the
five-year MPA review cycles recommended in the MLPA Master Plan. These questions tend to focus on design or
management decisions in which the effects of the decision on an Ecosystem Feature or feature components are likely to be
difficult to detect or interpret due to the dynamic nature of the South Coast environment. Because of their complex nature,
many of these questions may be best addressed through research partnerships.
To identify approaches that can inform future management decisions and guide the development of research partnerships,
potential long-term evaluation questions have been arranged in MPA and network design categories, listed below. These
categories reflect: 1) the guidance on MPA Network Design as developed by the MLPA Science Advisory Team and outlined
in the MLPA Master Plan;3 2) the science guidance developed during the South Coast MPA planning process as recorded in
1 California MLPA Initiative, Science Question Received at the August 3, 2009 Meeting of the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder
Group, Revised September 3, 2009. 2 Draft Methods Used to Evaluate MPA Proposals in the MLPA South Coast Study Region, MLPA Initiative, May 4 2009, p.64-68
3 California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas, Revised Draft, Jan. 2008, p. 34-41.
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
34
various MLPA Initiative documents; and 3) consultations with stakeholders to date during the development of the draft
South Coast MPA Monitoring Plan. These questions highlight topics within each category and are not in order of priority.
SIZE & SHAPE
Based on scientific information on movement patterns of various species, the MLPA Master Plan for MPAs suggests that
MPAs should span a minimum of 3-6 miles in extent along coastlines, and that “larger MPAs, spanning 6-12.5 miles of
coastline, are probably a better choice given current data on adult fish movement patterns”.4 In applying this guidance to
the South Coast region, the SCSAT recommended that each individual MPA cover an alongshore span of at least 3-6 miles,
with a total minimum size of 9 square miles.5
Science guidance was also developed for the shape of MPAs. Because several species move between shallow and deeper
habitat, the science guidance in the MLPA Master Plan notes that MPAs that extend offshore (from the coastline to the
three-nautical-mile offshore boundary of state waters) will accommodate such movement and protect individuals over their
lifetimes. The SCSAT adopted this recommendation.
Draft evaluation questions, not listed in order of priority:
1. Are there differences in ecosystem responses (e.g., types and rates of changes observed) among MPAs of different sizes? In particular, are there thresholds or discontinuities in the way in which ecosystems respond that are a function of MPA size, and what are the implications for network design?
2. What is the relationship between the alongshore span of an MPA and the protection afforded to organisms with different home range sizes, movement patterns and pelagic larval durations?
3. How are the MPAs used by species that inhabit shallow nearshore habitats when young and move to deeper habitats as adults, and what are the implications for the offshore extent of MPAs?
4. If fishing occurs along the boundaries of MPAs, what are the effects on species and communities inside MPAs of different sizes?
5. Is “spillover” of fishery species affected by MPA size and what are the implications for designing MPAs to achieve ecosystem protection and potential benefits to fisheries?
SPACING
The science guidance on MPA spacing, meaning the recommended distance between adjacent MPAs, is based on analysis of
scientific information about the larval dispersal distances of various marine organisms. While the MPA spacing guidelines
primarily focus on larval dispersal distances, the distances between MPAs can also interact with the movements of adult
organisms, for example during along-shore migrations. The MLPASAT recommended spacing MPAs approximately 31-62
miles apart to be within the larval dispersal ranges of important bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrate groups. The SCSAT
adopted this guideline for MPAs on the mainland of the South Coast Region, and recommended that guidelines other than
spacing (e.g. bioregions, habitat representation, habitat replication, and MPA size) be applied to the design of MPAs at the
Channel Islands.6
Draft evaluation questions, not listed in order of priority:
4 Ibid. p. 37.
5 The total size criterion could also be met through clustering adjacent MPAs together, as long as each MPA is at least of moderate-high
protection. (Draft Methods Used to Evaluate MPA Proposals in the MLPA South Coast Study Region, MLPA Initiative, May 4 2009.) 6 Ibid, p. 77.
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
35
1. Does inter-MPA distance affect patterns of larval supply and recruitment in MPAs?
2. What are the effects of different inter-MPA distances on connectivity between MPAs, either through larval exchange or movement of adults?
HABITAT REPRESENTATION
In addition to direction concerning MPA size and spacing, the science guidelines recommended habitat representation and
replication. Under the MLPA Master Plan, all key habitat types must be protected in MPAs, with each key habitat protected
in 3-5 MPAs (replicates) per biogeographic region. The SCSAT adopted these recommendations with the addition of two
habitats unique to the South Coast Region.7 In addition, the SCSAT identified five bioregions in the South Coast (North
Mainland, South Mainland, West Channel Islands, Mid-Channel Islands, and East Channel Islands), and recommended that
each habitat type be protected in at least one MPA in each of the bioregions where feasible.
Habitat representation is widely used in MPA planning as a proxy for representing different biological communities, based
on the knowledge that different species and biological communities are associated with different habitats and that many
species are dependent on different habitat types at different stages of their life cycles. Evaluations of design decisions
relating to habitat representation can thus range from assessment of the extent to which MPAs do include the identified
habitat types (e.g., through detailed mapping) to evaluation of species-habitat relationships to assess the extent to which
the identified habitat types are associated with different species, life stages, or biological communities.
Draft evaluation questions, not listed in order of priority:
1. Are there unique habitats which contribute significantly to the biodiversity of the region and which are not represented in the MPAs or identified key habitats?
2. Do MPAs enclosing multiple habitat types harbor higher species abundances or more diverse communities than those that encompass only a single habitat type through the effects of increased habitat structural complexity?
3. Are there differences in ecosystem responses (e.g., types and rates of changes observed) between MPAs in which habitats are contiguous and those with similar but patchily distributed habitats?
4. Is “spillover” of fishery species affected by habitat continuity across MPA boundaries, and what are the implications for designing MPAs to achieve ecosystem protection and potential benefits to fisheries?
PLACEMENT & SITING
In designing proposed MPA networks for the South Coast Region, stakeholders considered where MPAs were located
relative to access points, terrestrial parks, boat launch facilities, marine research laboratories and educational institutions.
Stakeholders also considered how siting MPAs could enhance or reduce network connectivity.
Draft evaluation questions, not listed in order of priority:
1. What are the population effects of siting MPAs in larval source or sink locations, and what are the implications for MPA network design? In particular, to what extent are mainland MPAs a source of larvae and recruits to Channel Island MPAs?
2. What are the effects on visitation and associated recreational opportunities of siting MPAs adjacent to public versus private land?
7 Two habitats unique the SCR as identified by the SCSAT are oil seeps and shallow hydrothermal vents (Ibid, p. 57).
South Coast MPA Monitoring Planning Public Workshops, Round 2, November 2010
36
LEVELS OF PROTECTION
The proposed South Coast regional MPA networks include MPAs of different types and allowed activities, ranging from
State Marine Reserves (SMRs), which prohibit all take of living marine resources, to State Marine Conservation Areas
(SMCAs) and State Marine Parks (SMPs), which allow different extractive activities, depending on the site. To guide the MPA
planning process, the SCSAT defined ‘Levels of Protection’, reflecting scientific judgments of the relative effects of allowing
specific harvest activities within MPAs.8 Each proposed MPA was assigned to one of six protection levels, depending on the
activities to be allowed within that site. Thus, a no-take SMR was categorized as “Very High” protection, and MPAs allowing
activities that alter habitat, such as mechanical giant kelp harvest and mussel and scallop extraction, were categorized as
“Low” protection. As the same level of protection may be applied to MPAs that allow different fishing activities at different
sites, SMRs are the simplest and most straightforward entry point for initial evaluations of levels of protection. This may
include assessment of the comparative effects of SMRs of different configurations, and broad comparisons of SMRs with
SMCAs. Over time, and perhaps through evaluation of MPAs in several regions, fine-scale evaluations of the effects of
allowing specific fisheries, or of the comparative effects of SMCAs of adjacent levels of protection, will become more
feasible.
Potential evaluation questions, not listed in order of priority:
1. What are the ecosystem responses (e.g., types and rates of changes observed) within SMRs and how do these differ from such responses within SMCAs?
2. Do SMR/SMCA clusters provide greater protection than stand-alone SMRs, for example through a “buffer” effect?
3. Do large SMRs provide higher or equivalent protection to ecosystems than areas of equivalent size that are comprised of an SMR and contiguous SMCA (referred to as an SMR/SMCA cluster)?
4. Are there differences in ecosystem responses (e.g., types and rates of changes) between MPAs that do and do not allow take of pelagic species?
5. What is the impact of urchin and giant kelp harvest on lobster-urchin-sheephead-kelp dynamics?
6. Are there differences in ecosystem responses (e.g., types and rates of changes) between MPAs that do and do not contain habitat restoration activities?
8 Draft Methods Used to Evaluate MPA Proposals in the MLPA South Coast Study Region, MLPA Initiative, May 4 2009, p. 15-32